What drives the expansion of the peer-to-peer lending? Olena Havrylchyk, Carlotta Mariotto, Talal Rahim, Marianne Verdier Janvier 2017
Is P2P lending a potentially disruptive innovation? Important topic and very welcome analysis in the paper. Very young industry, mainly post 2007 financial crisis... difficult and challenging to predict the evolution of the sector. More on the size of the phenomenon? Figure in the paper shows exponential growth. But in %?
Is P2P lending a potentially disruptive innovation? Important topic and very welcome analysis in the paper. Very young industry, mainly post 2007 financial crisis... difficult and challenging to predict the evolution of the sector. More on the size of the phenomenon? Figure in the paper shows exponential growth. But in %?
Is P2P lending a potentially disruptive innovation? Important topic and very welcome analysis in the paper. Very young industry, mainly post 2007 financial crisis... difficult and challenging to predict the evolution of the sector. More on the size of the phenomenon? Figure in the paper shows exponential growth. But in %?
The paper provides an interesting empirical analysis, trying to distinguish among alternative explanations of the expansion of P2P lending. Three hypothesis: competition-related; crisis-related; Internet-related.
The paper provides an interesting empirical analysis, trying to distinguish among alternative explanations of the expansion of P2P lending. Three hypothesis: competition-related; crisis-related; Internet-related.
The paper provides an interesting empirical analysis, trying to distinguish among alternative explanations of the expansion of P2P lending. Three hypothesis: competition-related; crisis-related; Internet-related.
The paper provides an interesting empirical analysis, trying to distinguish among alternative explanations of the expansion of P2P lending. Three hypothesis: competition-related; crisis-related; Internet-related.
The paper provides an interesting empirical analysis, trying to distinguish among alternative explanations of the expansion of P2P lending. Three hypothesis: competition-related; crisis-related; Internet-related.
Econometric identification of the drivers of P2P lending diffusion relies on geographic heterogeneity across US Counties. Data from the US platforms Lending Club and Prosper (2006-2013). Matched with county-level industry and socio-economic characteristics (+ innovation).
Econometric identification of the drivers of P2P lending diffusion relies on geographic heterogeneity across US Counties. Data from the US platforms Lending Club and Prosper (2006-2013). Matched with county-level industry and socio-economic characteristics (+ innovation).
Econometric identification of the drivers of P2P lending diffusion relies on geographic heterogeneity across US Counties. Data from the US platforms Lending Club and Prosper (2006-2013). Matched with county-level industry and socio-economic characteristics (+ innovation).
Estimation method: spatial autoregressive model. Allows to test (separately) the three alternative hypothesis and to consider spatial diffusion (impact of adoption in neighbour counties). Coefficients are significant and coherent across specifications (size and signs).
Estimation method: spatial autoregressive model. Allows to test (separately) the three alternative hypothesis and to consider spatial diffusion (impact of adoption in neighbour counties). Coefficients are significant and coherent across specifications (size and signs).
Estimation method: spatial autoregressive model. Allows to test (separately) the three alternative hypothesis and to consider spatial diffusion (impact of adoption in neighbour counties). Coefficients are significant and coherent across specifications (size and signs).
Empirical strategy: based on the hypothesis of spatial correlation. Tested? Alternative models inspired by the innovation literature: logistic diffusion models... The autoregressive term is strongly significant. But, do the other explanatory variable have high time variation? If not, risk to capture something else? More in general, details on spatial vs time variation in the sample could be interesting.
Empirical strategy: based on the hypothesis of spatial correlation. Tested? Alternative models inspired by the innovation literature: logistic diffusion models... The autoregressive term is strongly significant. But, do the other explanatory variable have high time variation? If not, risk to capture something else? More in general, details on spatial vs time variation in the sample could be interesting.
Empirical strategy: based on the hypothesis of spatial correlation. Tested? Alternative models inspired by the innovation literature: logistic diffusion models... The autoregressive term is strongly significant. But, do the other explanatory variable have high time variation? If not, risk to capture something else? More in general, details on spatial vs time variation in the sample could be interesting.
Empirical strategy: based on the hypothesis of spatial correlation. Tested? Alternative models inspired by the innovation literature: logistic diffusion models... The autoregressive term is strongly significant. But, do the other explanatory variable have high time variation? If not, risk to capture something else? More in general, details on spatial vs time variation in the sample could be interesting.
Competition variables: C3 and branches per capita significant and negative (HHI never significant). Interpreted as consumer loyalty (switching costs). Alternative explanation: small markets (high costs/risks foreconomic, historical reason) are associated with both high concentration/low development of P2P lending. It could be interesting to have an entry model (explain how P2P lending appears in a County), also because of possibly many zeros in the dependent variable. Some two-stages procedure?
Competition variables: C3 and branches per capita significant and negative (HHI never significant). Interpreted as consumer loyalty (switching costs). Alternative explanation: small markets (high costs/risks foreconomic, historical reason) are associated with both high concentration/low development of P2P lending. It could be interesting to have an entry model (explain how P2P lending appears in a County), also because of possibly many zeros in the dependent variable. Some two-stages procedure?
Competition variables: C3 and branches per capita significant and negative (HHI never significant). Interpreted as consumer loyalty (switching costs). Alternative explanation: small markets (high costs/risks foreconomic, historical reason) are associated with both high concentration/low development of P2P lending. It could be interesting to have an entry model (explain how P2P lending appears in a County), also because of possibly many zeros in the dependent variable. Some two-stages procedure?
Competition variables: C3 and branches per capita significant and negative (HHI never significant). Interpreted as consumer loyalty (switching costs). Alternative explanation: small markets (high costs/risks foreconomic, historical reason) are associated with both high concentration/low development of P2P lending. It could be interesting to have an entry model (explain how P2P lending appears in a County), also because of possibly many zeros in the dependent variable. Some two-stages procedure?
Crisis variables: Identified only by geographical heterogeneity, because almost all the sample is during/after the financial crisis. Not significant. Still, the crisis could have a global effect on the attitude towards alternative kinds of finance... This might have an impact on future developments.
Crisis variables: Identified only by geographical heterogeneity, because almost all the sample is during/after the financial crisis. Not significant. Still, the crisis could have a global effect on the attitude towards alternative kinds of finance... This might have an impact on future developments.
Crisis variables: Identified only by geographical heterogeneity, because almost all the sample is during/after the financial crisis. Not significant. Still, the crisis could have a global effect on the attitude towards alternative kinds of finance... This might have an impact on future developments.
Crisis variables: Identified only by geographical heterogeneity, because almost all the sample is during/after the financial crisis. Not significant. Still, the crisis could have a global effect on the attitude towards alternative kinds of finance... This might have an impact on future developments.
Interesting hints from the socio-demographic controls. Race? (supply/demand, what information on the project)? Less poor, more educated have positive impact on diffusion. Hints on the possible role of P2P lending in competitive context.
Interesting hints from the socio-demographic controls. Race? (supply/demand, what information on the project)? Less poor, more educated have positive impact on diffusion. Hints on the possible role of P2P lending in competitive context.
Interesting hints from the socio-demographic controls. Race? (supply/demand, what information on the project)? Less poor, more educated have positive impact on diffusion. Hints on the possible role of P2P lending in competitive context.
Unfortunately, relationship with payday lending does not give significant results. But, this is potentially interesting. Platforms could cream-skim when competing with payday lenders. Maybe try to find other variables, i.e. volumes instead of ratio of non-bank establishments. Complementary development (both competes primarily with banks) or substitution (direct competition)?
Unfortunately, relationship with payday lending does not give significant results. But, this is potentially interesting. Platforms could cream-skim when competing with payday lenders. Maybe try to find other variables, i.e. volumes instead of ratio of non-bank establishments. Complementary development (both competes primarily with banks) or substitution (direct competition)?
More hints on how to model the industry? Platform pricing? Is the evidence consistent with standard two sided market models (role of externalities)? Is there variation in tarification and thus possibility to study its impact on diffusion?
More hints on how to model the industry? Platform pricing? Is the evidence consistent with standard two sided market models (role of externalities)? Is there variation in tarification and thus possibility to study its impact on diffusion?
More hints on how to model the industry? Platform pricing? Is the evidence consistent with standard two sided market models (role of externalities)? Is there variation in tarification and thus possibility to study its impact on diffusion?
In the separate estimations, the size of coefficient seems to be driven by Lending Club. Can you guess why? Is there any difference if the model is estimated only from 2007 (when both platforms exist)? Do the two platforms initially diffuse in the same places or in different Counties? Last small point about inference: are the standard errors clustered? At the County level?
In the separate estimations, the size of coefficient seems to be driven by Lending Club. Can you guess why? Is there any difference if the model is estimated only from 2007 (when both platforms exist)? Do the two platforms initially diffuse in the same places or in different Counties? Last small point about inference: are the standard errors clustered? At the County level?
In the separate estimations, the size of coefficient seems to be driven by Lending Club. Can you guess why? Is there any difference if the model is estimated only from 2007 (when both platforms exist)? Do the two platforms initially diffuse in the same places or in different Counties? Last small point about inference: are the standard errors clustered? At the County level?